**Much of this information came to me from a seminar on NT Text Criticism under Dr Daniel Wallace while attending Dallas Theological Seminary. I know he has books and articles published on these topics, and the most basic would be Interpreting the NT Text by Bock and Fanning. There’s much data here that would need support, but it’s simply from my studies. If interested in more information, let me know. I’ll be updating down the road. (You can also listen to Dr Wallace’s debates with Bart Ehrman on Youtube. I will post them on my Favorite Resources page).
Note: Majority Text is a text type (representation of large group of manuscripts) that is different from the Textus Receptus (small family of manuscripts that became foundation for KJV). Granted, the TR and the MT are distinct in 2000 places (mere percentage points), but that’s because the family of manuscripts that comprise the TR are largely majority texts. This post is not about the TR.
In the broader realm of text criticism, most people argue for either an eclectic approach or the MT. The former looks at external evidence (e.g., strength of witnesses), internal evidence (e.g., style of NT authors), or usually a combination of both.
The MT camp merely counts how many manuscripts support a certain reading, and the most wins. That is, whichever variant has the most support must be original.
There is sufficient debate over methods and even further discussion as to how the MT began (some say an individual began a new recension of the text [one possibility is Lucian around A.D. 300, proposed by Dan Wallace]; others argue for a natural evolution [see Metzger-Ehrman]).
In either case, one factor that probably contributed to the development of a popular (more uniform text) was persecution under Diocletian (303-311). Scripture was being destroyed. Some faithful scribes wanted to preserve whatever they could. Unfortunately, this can result in conflation (combining two readings into one in fear of losing something [see below for an example). This makes sense. If persecution threatened our Bible and lives, it would force Christians to decide not only which books we were willing to die for but also what those books actually said.
Dr Wallace also mentions Constantine’s ordering of 50 Bibles to be made (possible using Lucian’s recension), the development of the Latin Vulgate), the person and influence of John Chrysostom, and the decline of the Alexandrian text type due to the rise of the Muslim Empire in Northern Africa. all of these potentially contributed to the emergence of the Byzantine text/MT, and its ability to become the majority text by the end of the first millennium. But that’s the point, this text type was not the majority for nearly 800-900 years.
When do we see the MT emerge?
Per Metzger-Ehrman, the first readings that have Byzantine flavor appear in the 4th century with Basil the Great and Chrysostom. The first one to use the Byzantine text-type in its full form was a student of Lucian (Asterius, mid 4th cent).
The earliest manuscript to be Byzantine is Alexandrinas, a 5th century manuscript. It has typically Byzantine readings in the gospels and Alexandrian readings everywhere else.
The MT/Byzantine text became dominant around the 9th century. We have around 130 papyri (mostly fragmentary), but there is no doubt these are our most valuable witnesses to the NT text. There may be one that is a witness to the Byzantine text, and it is dated much later than the others. None of the versions produced prior to the 4th century (Latin, Coptic, Syriac) contain primarily Byzantine readings.
The Byzantine/MT has the most conflations, as we saw with Lucian’s recension. Here’s a good example:
“to a deserted place” (א*)
MT has “to a deserted place of a city called Bethsaida”
In sum, the question is not, “Isn’t the majority always right?” But when do we start counting, and what are we counting?
If we hold to the “Majority Text,” we have to wrestle with its history, why and how it became the majority, and whether mistakes were included before all those copies were made. This does not negate the fact that other text types contain errors. But we have to weigh the type of errors in the manuscripts. One can see that text criticism cannot be so easy as counting manuscripts.
If I were to give a math problem to my middle school class (yes, I taught MS Math for a year…fantastic), and I based everyone’s grade on how well they copied two or three of the kids who really paid attention and took good notes and had perfect attendance, would that guarantee no mistakes would be made?
If one initial student makes a simple addition mistake or leaves off a negative sign, that error will be copied throughout the classroom, and even though their transcription skills are 100%, their conclusions would be very false.
What if I started copying my favorite manuscript right now? For the next 20 years I only made 10,000 copies of a Western text type manuscript to ensure it was now the majority. Would it be accepted as the original text? When is the cut off date for manuscripts? (The 6-7 manuscripts of Byzantine manuscripts behind the Textus Receptus are from the 11-13th centuries.)
There are a few places where scholars who use reasoned eclecticism as a text critical theory think the MT has the original reading. MT manuscripts are valuable in the fact that they are witnesses to the text. However, the philosophy of discounting date and location of manuscript, the known skill of the scribe, the style of the author among other factors doesn’t make much sense to me. There will always be more manuscripts to count.
No comments:
Post a Comment